 |
The Negotiation
of Nature |
| |
While it is popular to assume that
ecology is a nonpartisan scientific discipline, deeper reflection
forces us to recognize that when linked to any form of advocacy,
such as what his ecologically desirable, it is not and can inherently
never stand free from politics. |
| |
To examplify: Among the most controversial
issues for Saami today are 1) the existential status of predator
populations at the expense of the reindeer herding livelihood 2)
the claim that too many Saami reindeer are transforming the Swedish
mountains into a rocky desert 3) the battle over small game hunting
and the confiscation of the Saami exclusive hunting right 4) the
contested Saami right of traditional usage to graze reindeer east
of the Agriculture Line 5) the increasing use of "high-tech"
equipment (snowmobiles, helicopters and now motorbikes) in the practice
of reindeer herding, and 6) the growing pressures to widen the membership
of the herding collectives to include non-herding Saami. Obviously
each of these issues has direct economical bearing on Saami livelihoods
and, through them, bearing on Saami culture. The entrance of Sweden
into EU is also a matter of utmost significance for the Saami, as
it imposes yet another layer of higher-order regulation far removed
from the local context. The limited self-determination which the
Saami have still been able to maintain regionally in a livelihood
legally confined to them is now under threat, not as before from
the competition of farmers and settlers, or by the rationalization
programs of the welfare State, but rather from the appropriation
into global concerns. |
| |
Certainly, in the examples above,
resource conflict is a central issue. Yet parallel to the aspect
of resource as material good is the aspect of resources as cultural
and ethnic domain. Do the reindeer utilize Saami grazing or Swedish
grazing? Are the mountain regions a Swedish or a Saami landscape?
Most importantly, is the Saami core area and base for Saami livelihoods
to be appropriated under the management forms of Swedish ecology
imbued with the agreements of international declarations? Or is
there room for Saami self-maintenance and self-development, that
is, ecological goals dedicated to the sustainable development of
the reindeer-herding population and Saami society? Will the international
conventions and institutions devised to protect the environment,
frequently armed with lowest-common-denominator admonitions and
without enforcement agencies, provide better protection than that
of traditional local users or individual states? |
| |
The formulation of such questions
is preconditioned by an awareness of the unavoidable political dimension
of ecology in practice. Goals of "sustainable development"
beg the questions what is to be sustained and for whom. There are
an infinite number of long-term sustainable ecosystems that can
be promoted in a given region; which, is a political question. What
can be termed "vulgar ecology" tends to cloak the role
of human purpose in conceptions of Nature. It is a perspective readily
revealed by the reductionistic, monetary metaphors it employs; one
should live on the "interest" and not deplete the "capital"
of natural resources. Supposedly, if one follows this rule of thumb,
Nature (or whatever eco-system has been targeted by human purposiveness,
for example "wetlands") will be sustained. However, in
the monetary metaphor, even if amounts of it change, money is a
constant. One is either sustaining it, increasing it or depleting
it. Eco-systems do not work this way. In whatever way they are being
utilized and to whatever degree, they also thereby alter character
(not just quantity). |
| |
It is my contention that indigenous
peoples can be regarded as weather vanes for the rest of humanity
with respect to the effects of climate change. So good are the strong
at buffering themselves from the feedback of their own short-sighted
policies at the expense of the weak, that many of the future world's
worst global dilemmas will surface first among the native minorities.
It would be irresponsible to overlook political realities when assessing
ecological "winners and losers" of climate change. Not
only might climate change destroy much of the cultural continuity
and practical livelihoods of northern indigenous peoples, the possible
new opportunities it might afford may be largely lost to them. Should,
for example, global warming make feasible the cultivation and harvesting
of resources new to the north, the proceeds from this venture would
most likely come to benefit primarily members of the majority populations. |
| |
It is only relatively recently and
in a few specific areas that, through the process of comprehensive
settlement claims, the rights of northern indigenous peoples have
been recognized by their encompassing Nation-States as including
land ownership and various degrees of self-government. The Greenlanders
have been granted Home Rule by Denmark, and the Alaska Native Claims
Settlement Act of 1971 has established 12 regional land owning corporations.
In Canada the Inuvialuit Final Agreement in the Northwest Territories
and the Nunavut settlement in the eastern Arctic are examples of
major native land settlements. However, throughout most of the Arctic
regions indigenous peoples do not possess the ultimate control over
resource exploitation. Commonly they are seen to enjoy only usufruct
rights of land use, based upon their traditional use. For example,
the Saami in Sweden have alone been granted the privilege to herd
reindeer on Crown lands, but they would certainly not be given the
same right to herd sheep there. Indigenous peoples with mere usufruct
rights can hardly stand in the way of exploitation condoned or instigated
by a self-professed land owning Nation-State. Were the climate to
change so as to demand or make possible new forms of livelihood
for northern indigenous peoples, the new livelihoods would not entail
the legal or moral justifications for Native monopoly of resource
access enjoyed by many Natives today. Also international conventions
ratified by many of the northern nations protect Native resource
utilization as an essential element for indigenous cultural maintenance.
Even apart from the added problems of climate change, the pressures
of modernization and rationalization which bring about such practices
as reindeer herding by helicopter already try the patience of majority
peoples who have been denied resource access on the grounds that
it is necessary for the preservation of Native traditions. |
| |
Because of the many bitter conflicts
between northern indigenous peoples and their encompassing governments
over natural resources (hydro-electric power, timber, mining, hunting
and fishing, tourism, and animal protection), local indigenous peoples
are not necessarily prone to look kindly upon Nation-State environmental
protection efforts. Instead, and with good cause, they often view
government environmental policies and constraints as yet another
layer of colonialism, another means of blocking indigenous self-determination,
again with the so-often-heard refrain in the wake of government-condoned
massive environmental destruction benefiting powerful urban-based
money interests that the new regulations are for "their own
good." |
| |
If humankind is to confront the dangers
of climate change, the knowledge how best to do so and the technology
to effectuate this knowledge are not enough. Western scientists,
products of industrialized Nation-States, must establish a fundamental
integrity with indigenous peoples and bring them as co-partners
into this essentially human enterprise. Otherwise there is the very
real risk that the "cure" will be regarded by them as
worse than the disease and as another colonial ploy, stripping them
of self-determination and disrespectful of their indigenous knowledge. |
| |
While the impacts of various forms
of pollution over the past years have had demonstrated negative
effects on indigenous health and the maintenance of indigenous livelihoods,
the effects of climate change are far more subtle, and what human
agency there might be is far less recognizable amidst the myriad
of other long-term cyclic climatic trends. With respect to dramatic
impact on indigenous lives, direct human-made impacts of pollution,
legislation and competitive exploitation of lands are the most pressing.
This is not new. What is new is the justification often given by
majority legislators and the public media for legislative changes
regulating indigenous resource use. While those indigenous peoples
who have been bereft of their lands and stripped of their special
resource rights are frequently portrayed as romantic ecological
gurus, those maintaining some form of special resource access are
all too often labeled eco-criminals. Over grazed ranges, decreased
game stocks and the decrease of protected predatory species are
habitually and solely laid at the door of indigenous land users. |
|
Previous
Chapter